School shooting in Centennial, Colo.

If points were scored for the anti-gun movement off of Newtown, I'd like to see that scoreboard.

 

So in the case of this Colorado shooting, the shooter apparently had it in for a particular person? But never got the person he was after, but killed someone else by mistake?

 

See, here's the problem. The folks who are characterized as the "rabid unhinged anti-gun crowd" are not merely the ones who actually fall into that group. Instead, the NRA/right wing has quite skillfully planted the false impression throughout working class America that anyone who supports ANY rational new firearm restrictions likewise belongs in that crowd. And they scare the shit out of hunters and everyday people into thinking people are trying to seize their guns who actually have no such intent.

The vast numbers I know who detest our gun laws see it like I do. We do NOT want full scale gun control. We do NOT want to restrict the access of the sane and law abiding to guns that are purely used for reasonable hunting and self-defense purposes. But we are concerned with how easy it is in this country for unstable pea-brained dipshits to get hold of shockingly lethal weaponry, including completely unnecessary rapid fire semi-automatic weapons that serve no reasonable hunting or self-defense purposes, but instead were designed purely to kill many human beings as quickly as possible in battle scenarios.

People who merely have those views get painted as "rabid unhinged anti-gun nuts" also. Anybody who supports any reasonable restriction gets painted as some radical anti-liberty leftist by the NRA crowd. Makes reasonable discourse impossible when one side is so utterly intractable.

 

You know how many times we've been told some massacre would be a "tipping point" on this issue? After seeing absolutely nothing change after Sandy Hook, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, etc. etc. I've a hard time imagining what level of mayhem would make a difference.

 

He didn't kill anyone. Except himself.

 

I do.

I'm not some anti-liberty nut - I'm all for accountability.

We, as a country, have proven we can't be trusted with the access to guns we already have.

According to this analysis, almost 200 kids ages 12 or younger have died as a result of guns SINCE NEWTOWN, one year ago:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/12/children-killed-guns-newtown-anniversary

 

The real problem in this country is we have way too much of a love affair for the gun, combined with a lot of paranoid individuals in general.

The love affair for the gun isn't just about gun ownership, though. The most popular video games are about shooting up everything and everyone in sight. Doesn't mean the video game caused real-life gun violence, but it does mean people have a love affair for the gun when they play them, even if they don't actually own a gun.

As far as paranoid individuals go, the individual who goes out and buys a gun every single time they hear about some shooting or murder is, for a fact, paranoid and needs to be told to take a deep breath and relax -- and for every NRA member on the planet to admit said individual is taking their right to own a gun to ridiculous extremes and not pretend that saying so instantly means all guns should be taken away.

And I agree with what Stoney said. I'm not interested in taking all guns away from everybody but just looking for reasonable measures to reduce the chances that somebody not in their right mind gets his or her hands on a gun and takes, or attempts to take, somebody's life. Yet it's always certain individuals who are spouting off the equivalent of "nothing to see here, move on" or "more guns, less crime, no matter what, discussion over."

 

There is no reliable way to know what person is a "responsible" gun owner and who is the next mass shooter just waiting for someone to yank his chain. Interesting to me that some of the more high-profile mass shootings involved persons who had no criminal background and would pass all the background checks and hurdles set up. That just tells me there is no reliable way to tell what a person might do and all the stuff going on now does little more than further stigmatize people with very mild and treatable mental conditions and does nothing to prevent shootings.

 

I think it's naive to think that most gun violence is able to be stopped by stricter gun laws - criminals are criminals, and just as the laws outlawing drugs haven't made them inaccessable to those willing to break the law, if you're motivated to commit murder despite the rules against it, it's unlikely that it will be too hard to secure a weapon.

Still it's pretty obvious that the gun lobby has gone a little off the deep end in terms of fighting tooth & nail over even the most rational and seemingly unobjectionable regulation. To me it seems that each side of the political aisle has an issue like this. The pro-choice groups are similarly fiercely against pretty inoccuous restrictions against abortion. This extremism emboldens the opposition, confirming their belief that the other side is simply evil and irrational. The problem, I think, is that both groups (gun rights and abortion rights) are convinced that the other side is out to take away everything, so any concession is an unacceptable step down a slippery slope. What exacerbates the problem is that they're both right (are you paranoid if they really are out to get you?).

 

Being reasonable gets you nowhere in today's America.

 

No politics on these threads.
By order of the unit commander.
Both sides are so full of rot it's foolhardy even to choose.

 

Oh good, another thread where the guy who owns 76 guns gets to pretend he's anti-gun.

What proposed law would have prevented this 18-year0old kid from buying a shotgun?

Gun-loving legislators like Representative John Dingell of Michigan worried that even harsher restrictions were imminent and clamored for the N.R.A. to wake up and enter the political arena. The lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, was formed in 1975.

Great article. It never mentions the party affiliation of this Dingell guy. What ever happened to him? Can I just assume he is/was some sort of right-wing Republican, and a forefather to the modern Tea Party movement?